↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Ovarian ablation for early breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Ovarian ablation for early breast cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2008
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000485.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mike J Clarke

Abstract

Among women with early breast cancer, the effects of ovarian ablation on recurrence and death have been assessed by several randomised trials that now have long follow-up. In this report, the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group present their third 5-yearly systematic overview (meta-analysis), now with 15 years' follow-up. Trial identification procedures for the EBCTCG overviews have been described elsewhere. See under "EBCTCG" in the Breast Cancer Collaborative Review Group module. All properly randomised trials that began recruiting before 1990 which compared the ablation or suppression of ovarian function, sometimes with the addition of prednisone, versus no such adjuvant treatment for women with operable breast cancer. In practice, all the trials that can be reviewed here began before 1980, and all involved surgical or therapeutic ablation. In 1995, information was sought on each patient in any randomised trial of ovarian ablation or suppression versus control that began before 1990. Data were obtained for 12 of the 13 studies that assessed ovarian ablation by irradiation or surgery, all of which began before 1980, but not for the four studies that assessed ovarian suppression by drugs, all of which began after 1985. Menopausal status was not consistently defined across trials; therefore, the main analyses are limited to women aged under 50 (rather than "premenopausal") when randomised. Oestrogen receptors were measured only in the trials of ablation plus cytotoxic chemotherapy versus the same chemotherapy alone. Among 2102 women aged under 50 when randomised, most of whom would have been premenopausal at diagnosis, 1130 deaths and an additional 153 recurrences were reported. 15-year survival was highly significantly improved among those allocated ovarian ablation (52.4 vs 46.1%, 6.3 [SD 2.3] fewer deaths per 100 women, logrank 2p=0.001), as was recurrence-free survival (45.0 vs 39.0%, 2p=0.0007). The numbers of events were too small for any subgroup analyses to be reliable. The benefit was, however, significant both for those with ("node positive") and for those without ("node negative") axillary spread when diagnosed. In the trials of ablation plus cytotoxic chemotherapy versus the same chemotherapy alone, the benefit appeared smaller (even for women with oestrogen receptors detected on the primary tumour) than in the trials in the absence of chemotherapy (where the observed survival improvements were about six per 100 node-negative women and 12 per 100 node-positive women). Among 1354 women aged 50 or over when randomised, most of whom would have been perimenopausal or postmenopausal, there was only a non-significant improvement in survival and recurrence-free survival. In women aged under 50 with early breast cancer, ablation of functioning ovaries significantly improves long-term survival, at least in the absence of chemotherapy. Further randomised evidence is needed on the additional effects of ovarian ablation in the presence of other adjuvant treatments, and to assess the relevance of hormone-receptor measurements.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 22%
Other 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Researcher 3 5%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 19 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 21 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2011.
All research outputs
#22,830,981
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,281
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,922
of 102,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#66
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 102,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.